The Tennessean v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
485 S.W.3d 857
| Tenn. | 2016Background
- Metro Police investigated an alleged June 2013 sexual assault at Vanderbilt; four football players were indicted and criminal proceedings followed (including trial, conviction, and later grant of new trial for two defendants).
- A coalition of media organizations and the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government (the Petitioners) requested Metro Police investigative records under the Tennessee Public Records Act (TPRA); Metro denied the request.
- Chancery Court reviewed the files in camera, ordered partial disclosure of certain third‑party materials (with redactions), and withheld investigative work product under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2); the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Rule 16 broadly exempted the records.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review; during the pendency of the appeal the Criminal Court issued protective and sealing orders and proceedings continued.
- The question presented: whether Rule 16 or other state law prevents public (nonparty) access to police investigative files while criminal prosecutions and collateral challenges are pending, and what protections apply to the victim’s identifying images and data after conviction/sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction of chancery court over TPRA petition | Petitioners: Chancery has statutory TPRA jurisdiction to review public‑records denials | Metro: Criminal court already handling related discovery; chancery lacks proper jurisdiction | Chancery had jurisdiction under TPRA §10‑7‑505(b); its exercise was proper |
| Whether Rule 16 is a "state law" exception to the TPRA for investigative files | Petitioners: Rule 16(a)(2) protects only internal work product and witness statements; third‑party records given to police are public | State/Metro: Rule 16 and criminal discovery statutes control disclosure of records relevant to pending prosecutions and thus exempt such records from TPRA access | Rule 16 is a state‑law exception under §10‑7‑503(a)(2); Rule 16 governs disclosure during pendency of criminal cases and collateral challenges, limiting access to parties only |
| Scope of Rule 16 as to materials created by third parties and submitted to police | Petitioners: Third‑party materials are not Rule 16 work product and must be disclosed under TPRA | State/Metro: Allowing public access to such materials would eviscerate criminal discovery rules and risk fair‑trial and investigatory harms | Court held Rule 16 (as a state‑law rule governing criminal discovery) controls disclosure during pendency even for materials obtained from third parties; nonparties have no right to them while cases/collateral attacks are pending |
| Victim privacy and post‑conviction protections | Petitioners: public interest favors access; redactions may suffice | Jane Doe/State: Disclosure would violate victims’ dignity/privacy and statutory/constitutional victims’ rights; protective orders needed | Records are protected during pendency; after conviction/sentencing Tenn. Code §10‑7‑504(q)(1) bars public disclosure of victim’s identifying data and images (unless waived), requiring no further court action |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332 (Tenn. 2007) (rejected creation of a common‑law law‑enforcement privilege; remanded to determine which records relate to ongoing criminal investigations and thus may be exempt)
- Memphis Publ’g Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1986) (investigative files that are closed and not relevant to pending criminal action are not exempt under Rule 16)
- Appman v. Worthington, 746 S.W.2d 165 (Tenn. 1987) (Rules of Criminal Procedure constitute state‑law exception to TPRA; open investigative files relevant to pending prosecutions may be withheld under Rule 16)
- Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (Rules of Civil Procedure are state law that can exempt materials from TPRA; protective orders can shield records)
- Piedmont Publishing Co. v. City of Winston‑Salem, 434 S.E.2d 176 (N.C. 1993) (North Carolina Supreme Court held criminal discovery statute governs disclosure of materials gathered for a prosecution and precludes public inspection under the public‑records law)